Stare Decisis: Legal Precedent and the U.S. Court System

Introduction

The principle of stare decisis is a legal doctrine suggesting that courts rule consistently with case precedent — that is, with cases that have been previously decided. The doctrine originated from the common law in England and was designed to promote uniformity in the justice system. Courts are not always bound to rule according to previous decisions, especially if those decisions come from districts outside the sitting court's jurisdiction, and increasingly many courts have declined to follow precedent in their rulings. However, the United States Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, sets the precedent for courts throughout the country on constitutional issues. If a lower court fails to follow a Supreme Court decision, that decision will be overruled in the event of an appeal.

Stare decisis, although instituted for a beneficial purpose, has not been without controversy. The Supreme Court is the only court that can overrule itself, and its decision to do so — or not to do so — can sometimes be affected by the political, social, or racial climate of the time. Furthermore, stare decisis has often been criticized for the fact that it can usurp a lower court's power to decide a case based on the specific facts before it. On the other hand, many agree that the principle for which stare decisis was put in place — uniformity and consistency — has been established over the years. As courts have abandoned many unjust decisions in the nation's history, stare decisis has helped ensure those decisions remain history.

Overview of Stare Decisis

"Stare decisis" is a Latin term that literally means "to stand by that which is decided" (Lectric Law Library). The principle requires that a judge rule consistently with previous courts on the same issue. In other words, the doctrine holds that courts, prior to ruling on a case, are expected to determine whether the issue before them has been previously decided and take that prior ruling into account when making their decision. If the issues are identical or very similar, stare decisis suggests that the rulings should be identical or similar as well.

However, stare decisis has not always been relied upon (Lectric Law Library). Courts at times find it necessary to overrule previous decisions, particularly if there are distinguishing facts before them or if the previous decision resulted in an injustice or partiality. It follows that while stare decisis is widely used by courts, it is not a mandatory principle, and courts may use their discretion in deciding whether to follow the doctrine. The Supreme Court case of Burnet v. Coronado Oil and Gas Co. (1932) illustrates the principle that stare decisis is not required. Justice Brandeis, in that case, cited 28 instances in which the Supreme Court had overruled previous decisions (Maltz). In the period from 1937 to 1949, the Court overruled earlier decisions in 21 cases; by 1959, the number of cases in which the Court had issued reversals had increased to 60 (Maltz). The purpose of this paper is to examine the doctrine of stare decisis, including when courts have relied on it and when they have departed from it.

The History of Stare Decisis

Stare decisis originated under English common law. A natural desire for stability and consistency in the law gave rise to reliance on cases decided as far back as the 14th century (Von Moschzisker). As the English system of law developed, the principle of stare decisis was introduced as the idea that "a deliberate or solemn decision of a judge or court made on a question of law is an authority or binding precedent in the same court or on other courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where the same point is in controversy" (Von Moschzisker). It follows that when the principle of stare decisis was developed, it bound lower courts to rule as higher courts had ruled on the same or similar issues. The implication is that higher courts make the precedent for lower courts to follow, and if lower courts fail to follow these decisions, they can be overruled if the case is appealed.

However, at its institution, courts were given discretion as to whether to follow the doctrine. "The degree of authority belonging to such precedents necessarily depends on its agreement with the spirit of the times or the judgment of other tribunals upon its correctness" (Von Moschzisker). Since the implementation of stare decisis in the common law courts of England, courts have been expected to judge the correctness of previous decisions and to overrule them if those decisions prove unsound. Based on Justice Brandeis's observations in the Burnet case, courts have not always followed the doctrine and have ruled inconsistently with previous decisions at an increasing rate. The question that arises is: if stare decisis exists to promote stability in the legal system but courts are not bound to follow it, how effective is the doctrine?

Conclusion

Every case decided in the legal system will have support as well as opposition. Stare decisis is the legal principle that requires lower courts to follow the decisions of higher courts, lest they face being overruled on appeal. Still, since stare decisis was instituted from English common law, courts have been given discretion as to whether to follow the principle or to rule otherwise.

Stare decisis remains controversial because courts at times uphold decisions based on the political climate of the day and may fail to overrule a decision for the same reason. While political pressure to rule with or against a decision will always exist, in order for the principle of stare decisis to survive as a doctrine that benefits the legal system, the legal issues before the Court must remain at the center of the Court's decisions. As history has shown — from Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education — a doctrine untethered from sound legal reasoning risks entrenching injustice for generations before it is finally corrected.